The main purpose of running the football is to get consistent positive yardage and shorten the distance needed to pick up the first down in order to open up the play book depending on what team you are. some teams use the run as a safer method of gaining positive yards and making big plays, or masking the fact that their QB blows massive donkey nuts.. Assuming the ball carrier (s) take care of the football, you're less likely to turn the ball over.

Obviously, at the end of the game, it's used to run out the clock.

The main purpose of running the football is not to get big plays. Big plays are a bonus when you run the football. The problem with relying on a big play running game is...you're better off just throwing the ball instead. unless your qb blows and rb is a boss at ripping off big plays. but shhh i dont want to hear logic that goes against my poorly orchestrated argument

Even the best big play running game in the NFL will be inferior to even an above average passing attack in yards per attempt. true. but what if you have a monster RB and a ****ty passing game? might have to adjust hmm what oh what will we do?

Adrian Peterson averaged 6.0 yards/carry this past year. The NFL average this year in net yards/pass attempt (passing yards - sack yards / pass attempts + sacks) was 6.25 yards per pass attempt. If a team averaged 6.0 yards per rush like Peterson, that would rank 20th in the NFL as a passing game. ponder threw for 6.08 yards per attempt. i can throw at stats too. what the hell was the point of this paragraph? to show us that passing gets more yards per attempt? really?! what does this have to do with barry sanders? nice work, excellent use of your time.

Again, big runs in and of themselves are obviously a good thing. But relying on the big run at the expense of having an actual running game is not a good trade off. it certainly is if you have an atrocious passing game and the running game becomes your whole offense. like peterson had to deal with. and barry.

Which brings me to Barry Sanders. That was Barry Sanders, in a nut shell. Not only were his yards/carry averages heavily distorted by several big runs every season, but when you subtract his big runs from all his other runs, his averages tended to be dreadful. its amazing that if you only look at what you want to see how you see exactly what you want!

Take 1995, for example. If you subtract the 16 20+ yard runs Sanders had that year, and you subtract the 1 20+ yard run Loville had that year, Loville actually had the higher yards per carry. its just a shame barry actually made those runs which totally ruins my argument =(

Yes, the big runs count. And in this case, the difference in the rest of the two backs' running is narrow enough that I'd still take Sanders over Loville based on the big plays making up for Loville's slightly higher bread-and-butter running average. if youre subtracting the big runs, why are you keeping the negative runs that are hurting barrys average? if youre going to take away the gains from his running style then why not take away the negatives too? is that too much work or is it because it would completely ruin your argument?

But for backs who don't totally suck ass like Loville, that was not the case.

Emmitt Smith, for example, averaged ~3.9 yards/carry when all his 20+ yard runs from the 1995 season were subtracted. This in comparison to Sanders averaging ~3.1.

The big runs do not make up for this kind of difference in the effectiveness of the running game. Barry Sanders was a home run hitter. And, well...that was it. He did nothing else. He danced around, hoping to break the big one, on every carry.

And because he was a running back, you had to feed him the ball 300+ times per season in order to get those 16 20+ yard runs or so. If you want a big play, you'd be better off throwing the ball. Heck, even with Scott Mitchell at quarterback, you'd probably be better off passing. You certainly wouldn't be much worse. these last two paragraphs are phenomenal. so again passing the ball makes bigger plays? no way!!! oh **** vince lombardi tell me more! and if scott mitchell was going to give you more big plays...THAN WHY DIDNT HE? WHY DIDNT THE COACHING STAFF HAVE HIM THROW MORE INSTEAD OF GIVING THE BALL TO THAT SLOUCH OF A RB BEHIND HIM? ILL TELL YOU WHY ITS BECAUSE HE SUCKED HORRIBLY AND THEY KNEW IT.

The other problem is, you never knew when he was going to break the big one. He might get you a 40 yard run in a 14-14 game in the 3rd quarter. Great.

Or...he might get you a 22 yard run when you're down 24-10. Who cares?

He's probably a large part of the reason you're down 24-10 to begin with. no hes the reason youre not losing 24 to 0. see how i stated something based on no factual information at all that supported barry? just like you stated something with no basis bashing him. excellent work. While you were waiting for him to break the big one, he was making it 2nd and 9 and then 3rd and 13 on the opening drive of the game. Then, not surprisingly, you didn't convert 3rd and 13. he lost yardage on about 10% of his plays, but also broke huge plays on close to that number as well. as for your situation you made...how often did this happen? rarely? ever? show some supporting evidence because right now i see none, all i see are baseless remarks and hypotheticals not based in reality.

This is all everyone else's fault, of course. It's just that the offensive line was sooooooooooo baaaaaaaad.

You never hear the end of this garbage. It's as if these people think poor Barry Sanders was a downhill, between-the-tackles runner who wanted a fullback in front of him and he just couldn't do it because, for 10 years, he had the worst offensive line in the history of the universe.

All those blocking tight ends they brought in? The fact that they ran a variation of the run-and-shoot for nearly all the years Sanders played there, spreading the field and giving him plenty of space to work with? and then they brought in a fullback and he went for two thousand yards? remember that part too?

Oh, forget that. He was so exciiiiiting, it clearly couldn't have been his fault. Leading the league in carries for loss every season? and plays of 20+ yards but shh dont let facts get in the way of your god awful argument Why, his offensive lines were just soooo bad they not only couldn't get any movement, but they just let guys throw them aside and blow up plays in the backfield, over and over again. Sanders was dodging 11 defenders on every single carry.

Man, just imagine if he had Emmitt's o-line! He would've averaged 7, 8, 9, 10 yards/carry! Yeah, I'm sure Barry Sanders would have loved that. The man whose father whined to the press about the Lions putting a fullback in front of him under Bobby Ross would have loved to play in the Cowboys' smashmouth, between-the-tackles running attack, lining up behind Moose Johnston and trying to squeeze through 650 pounds of blubber in each hole, plowing through the front 7. That's Barry, all right.

first run: dodges hit in the backfield and gains about 5. but barry never gained medium yardage he was just a homerun guy!!!

second run: bounces outside and gets 8. but but but! this isnt fair, he only gets homeruns and loses otherwise hes useless!

At :21, he can have the 35/36 if he wants it. He doesn't, though. Better to lose 2. or there was backside pressure and no hole and the defense strung it out and stuffed him by doing there jobs very well. but hey lets blame barry because it fits my case!

4th run: met in the backfield by two guys but makes a move and gets one. but its not his olines fault they missed those two guys they cheated wahh my argument is falling apart!

5th run: big hole on a draw and barry makes them pay with a 15 or so gain. nice move and tackle break to get a few more. oop you didnt mention this run either hmmm i wonder why? because it didnt fit your **** argument?

At :41, he can attack 2 and work off the center. Nah, let's just dance instead. he shouldve hit the hole but danced and got two. he wasnt perfect on a play? AHA WEVE GOT HIM NOW HE SUCKS!!!

7th run: uh oh, well blocked up and barry goes for 8. oh no my argument is melting, melting...

1:09, he can either hit 4 off the good combo block, or bounce it. Nope...tip-toe, cut the other way, flip over backwards, and get your dick sucked for passing up a better run.

1:43, no, let's not play off the end's over-pursuit. Why would you want to do that? Russell Maryland might make the play, but you've got some space to work with. Oh, but that would be too obvious. Cut the other way, then get stopped by Maryland anyway because you have no feel whatsoever.

2:53, this is supposed to bounce. But Barry doesn't care what it's supposed to do.

At 3:09, he sees a great cutback right away but wastes time dancing. Maryland was in no position to spin out of that block in time if Sanders had hit that with authority.

4:05, what the hell is he doing?

Meanwhile, for anyone who wants to see how overrated the Cowboys' offensive line was (even more overrated than the Lions' line was underrated), here's Emmitt Smith pounding the hell out of the Packers in the 1995 NFC Championship game:

I especially love how it's always been cool to claim Emmitt was a product of the talentless fatasses the Cowboys put up front (with the exception of Larry Allen), but Terrell Davis...oh, he was just so great. Hmmm, I wonder which back got the larger holes. Gee, that's a tough one.

thats enough of this i stop right now.

This is pathetic. you intentionally left out positive plays and wrote only of the plays that supported your argument, and even then twisted them to see what you wanted.

this is akin to a scientist removing the samples that dont support his theory. never neg repped anyone but this is an absolutely pathetic argument cant believe i wasted twenty minutes reading this crap.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thumper/JBCX/Bixby

Orton will never be in the same class as the Drew Brees or the Peyton Mannings or the Tom Bradys of the world. Kevin Kolb has the potential to be that kind of player.

I would never want Ben Roethlisberger on my team. Sure, he gives you deep balls, but he fails to get you even a single yard on 37% of his passes! If you take out all of his passes over ten yards, he passes for like 500 yards per season. You're not going to win **** on 500 yards per season.

Sure, he can give you a 50 yard TD pass when you're down by 7 once in a while, but what good is it when you're up by 10?

Give me Chad Pennington instead. All-time leader in pass completion %. If you take out all of his passes over 10 yards, he still has ALL OF HIS YARDS!!! Nice steady production is what gets you down the field and controls the clock.

I like your gusto to go after a great player and make an absolutely absurd assertion, but your execution was just bland, there was no character or flare. Overall 4/10, you lost points for going over a boring dumb retread in a boring dumb way.

Barry Sanders was awesome, sure he'd have a couple negative runs a game, but that's no different than the sacks and picks QBs pick up. Teams still pass the ball because despite the few negative plays, the regular positive plays and big plays more than make up for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by killxswitch

I'm disappointed that troll threads last so long.

Troll threads can be great if the troller has skill, persistence and panache.

__________________
BK

Quote:

Originally Posted by AcheTen

JPP is a better and more productive player than Brandon Graham

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon41_80

Is Shaun Hill a top 10 QB? Definitely not. Is he a top 20 one? Almost certainly.

When were you born and when did you start watching football Jordan Taber?

Don't underestimate Jordan. He has some very unpopular opinions and points-of-view but he's very intelligent, articulate, and knows football. I've had countless arguments with him for years but he researches his postulates and is clever enough and detail-oriented enough to make strong arguments, regardless of how outlandish you might believe them to be.

I strongly disagree with him about Sanders, as well, but don't think for one second that he hasn't watched football inside-and-out for nearly 20 years.

That's the list of starting QB's during Barry's tenure in Detroit. If you think that group of QB's should have been throwing the ball more to produce big plays than to hand it off to Sanders... well, you clearly need to go back and watch tape of these guys. They are lucky that Herman Moore was so good. Or they wouldn't have even come close to putting up the pathetic stats that they did during this time period.

That's the list of starting QB's during Barry's tenure in Detroit. If you think that group of QB's should have been throwing the ball more to produce big plays than to hand it off to Sanders... well, you clearly need to go back and watch tape of these guys. They are lucky that Herman Moore was so good. Or they wouldn't have even come close to putting up the pathetic stats that they did during this time period.

I think Moore might be hall of fame worthy based on still being productive with such craptacular QBs.

__________________
Stafford Sig by touchdownrams the rest of the sig by Sig Master Bone Krusher Avy by King of all avys renji

This myth that Barry was all big plays to boost his YPC is getting ridiculous. The guy was very consistently churning out positive plays. He had more than a few seasons where he didn't even have a 50 yard or more run, and he was still awesome.

More than a few? 3. 1989 (34), 1990 (45), 1993 (42).

And it's not about the distance of the longest run, it's about the number of longer runs.

The main purpose of football is too outscore the other team. You do that by scoring points as a result of gaining yards - via rushing, passing or returning the ball.

Exactly. And the quickest way to move the football on average is by throwing the ball.

But you don't throw on every down, because that's too predictable and passing games don't tend to have the consistency (although they're getting awfully close these days) to be able to consistently get first downs by throwing 3 straight times off 1st and 10.

You want your offense to have a running back who can consistently pick up positive chunks of yardage to shorten the distance needed to get the first down.